Soil acidity survey. Lime responses in the central wheatbelt

(1)

Digital Library Digital Library

Experimental Summaries - Plant Research Agriculture

1984

Soil acidity survey. Lime responses in the central wheatbelt Soil acidity survey. Lime responses in the central wheatbelt

P J. Dolling

Follow this and additional works at: https://library.dpird.wa.gov.au/rqmsplant

Part of the Agronomy and Crop Sciences Commons, Fresh Water Studies Commons, Soil Science Commons, and the Weed Science Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Dolling, P J. (1984), Soil acidity survey. Lime responses in the central wheatbelt. Department of Primary

(2)

I

1.

2.

I

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS, 1984

PAGE NO.

Soil acidity survey 1.

Lime responses in the central wheatbelt 6.

P.J. DOLLING

Plant Research Division Dryland ·Research Institute

..---~· _vVf:ST~N_.•....

--

_i'

--·--·--·

D@»T. Ll"' i\Gk. ! ._, - . :

L!fj!V,RY

(3)

SOIL ACIDITY ^SURVE~

INTRODUCTION:

In 1984 a project commenced to examine the influence of soil acidity on barley production in the main barley growing areas of Western Australia. To carry out some of the pro)ects obJectives a soil survey was carried out.

1). To select nine sites for liming trials in 1985.

2>.

To obtain more information about the soil acidity problem ir\

the medium rainfall region of W.A.

3), To determine if there is a relationship between the pH and aluminium content of. the soil.

SURVEY DETAILS:

Area covered - Katanning and Narrogin District uffice (DO) areas.

Sampling period - Mid August to mid October, ^1~84.

Method - The sites were chosen by using the CSBP data base.

Paddocks which had a pH (in water) below 5.S were selected as

being possible sites for liming trials.

The farms were then visited and a site sampled if it was suitable

<uniform soil type and an area large enough to fit the trial in).

Sampling technique - the site was sampled on a grid basis to see if the site varied in terms of pH and aluminium content. between 8 and 16 points 50 - 60 cm apart were sampled Clen, U - 10 cm pogo core samples from each point) depending on the size of the site.

The largest area sampled was 195 m x 130 m , tne smallest 130 m x 65 m or 195 m x 40 m.

I

In addition three profile samples were taken across the site with

I

3 or 4 depths in each profile.

Analysis l1:5 soil:liquid ratio) ^pH (WaterJ

pH (U.01 M CaC12>

Al (0.01 M CaC12),

Soil ^_'I_y_p~s (38 sites sampled) - '!'he topsoil ^lA1 horizon)

texture ranged from a sand to a loamy sand to a sandy loam. The topsoil colour ranged from black to grey to brown.

The second layer or A2 horizon was lighter coloured than the Al horizon but with a similar texture. Some of the sites also ^ha~

a bleached A2 horizon (A2b) which was a white or nearly white A2 horizon.

(4)

I

1n nearly all of the sites the prbfiles went down to a yellow brown or red yellow or brown clay CB horizon) at 30 to 70 cm depth. The clay layer also contained sand with the percentage varying from site to site.

Horizon Depths (average)

With an A2b Horizon Without an A2b Horizon Al 0 10 cm Al ^(J

-

1 lJ cm

A2 ¹⁰ ³⁰ c rn A2 10 35 c rn

A2b 30

-

50 cm B 35 - 6 ^(J cm

B

so

^- 70 c rn

TABLE 1. Summary of 0 - 10 cm aluminium (in 0.01 M CaC12) values for 38 sites.

-- ^._,,_^....^···--·---·--- ----···---·---

Al lppm> No. Sites 7

6 5 4

~) L..

1

1 1 4 1 3 lO 8 1

..,. of Total Cumulative,,,

j

3 b

11 1 i'

34 51

26 d

j lU1

--·---· - ^..^---·---··-- ---·---·--·--·---^... --- TABLE 2. Summary of 0 - 10 cm prl water ana pH U.u1 M CaC12

values for 38 sites.

No. Sites ---

s.o

⁺ ^{5. 1} ⁵

5.2 + 5.3 b

5.4 + 5. 5 14

5.6 + 5.7 7

5.8 + 5. 9 4

CaC12

4.2 + 4 . 3 3

4 . 4 + 4.5 'lL

4.6 + 4. 7 15

4. 8 + 4. 9 6

5.0 + 5. 1 2

~ of Total Cumulative ^~

13 21 18 37 1 1

32 8 16 3~

5

LI J4 71 6'1

lOj

4U 8 79 9'.J 100

---·---.----·---·---~---·-···---····- . ·--- ·---··-···---··.

2

(5)

f'BUF JJ._E~_l_9nd pH VALUE:::.

TABLE J: Summary oi the aluminium levels (ppm) down the profile for 3& sites.

'/<. OF TOTAL 10-20 7-9 6 5 4 J 2 l

u

----·· -·----·-·--- ·--·---

A1 horizon A2 horizon A2b horizon B horizon c:urnulative /C:

A2 Al b A2b

(J 3 1 l 21 18

0 10 3 0 8

9 0 u ^u ⁹

3 3 0 J ^(j

0 3 14 35 53

0 10 13 1 ^j 21

9 9 9 9 ! 8

3 6 6 9 9

Al, A2 and B horizon 1 site= ^2.6~

Bleached horizon 1 site = 4.3%

34 l'1 ^j

21 16 24

9 4 1 J

0 5 '1l

87 98 101 42 58 82

27 31 44

9 14 ^t..:J^{., 1·}

TABLE 4. Summary of pH 0.01 M CaC12 values down the profile for 38 sites.

- - - -

I I I I I

(J 1 8 S7 76

'101 1 ^{(J (J} 101 1U1

% OF TOTAL 3.7-4.0 4.1-4.314.4-4.614.7-4.915.0-5.215.3-5.815.9-~.B

___________ 1 _ _ _ 1 .. ---- I --- ^..^I^----^.---

'

---··--···-·

I I ^I I I

Al horizon 0 21 I ⁴⁷ I ²⁹ ^I ⁰ I ³ I ⁰

I I I I I

A'") ,_ horizon

s

¹⁶ _I ³⁴ _I ³² I ¹^l I ³ I ⁰

I I I I I

A2b horizon 4 9 ! 3 I 22 I ¹⁷ ²⁶ ⁹

B horizon 5 0 8 I 11 LJ 45 18

Cumulative ^7.

Al 0 21 68 97 9/ 1 (J lJ '100

A2 I I ⁵ ²¹ ⁵⁵ ⁸⁷ ⁹⁸ ¹^lJ^'1 ¹⁰^'l

A2b I I ⁴ ^{1 3} ²⁶ ⁴⁸ ⁶⁵ ⁹¹ ^{1 Ou}

Jj I I 5 5 13 24 37 82 1 Li (J

______________ I

I

(6)

I

•

TABLE 5. Summary of pH (measured in waterJ vaiues down the proti1e for 38 sites.

I I I I

"' '• OF TOTAL 4.6-4.814.9-5.t 5.2-5.415.5-5.7 5.8-6.016.l-6.bl6.7-8.0

·-··--· -·-- I. ... ··--·--^·-~--- ________ I --- I I

I I I I

A1 horizon 3 I ¹³ ⁴⁵ I 24 lJ I ³ I

u

A2 horizon 8 I ^1J ²⁴ I ²⁶ ¹⁸ I ^{1 '1} I ⁰

A2b horizon 4 I ¹⁷ ⁴ I ¹⁷ ⁹ I ³⁵ I ^Jj

B horizon 3 I ³ 5 I ¹³ ¹⁸ I ³⁴ I ²⁴

I I I I

Cumulative '"' ^'• I I I I

I I I I

A1 ³ I ¹⁶ ⁶¹ I

as

98 I ^HJl I ^1(J1

A2 8 I ²¹ ⁴⁵ I 71 8'3 I ¹⁰⁰ I 100

A2 4 I 21 25 _I 42 5t I ⁸⁶ I

"'J

B 3 I ⁶ ¹¹ I ²⁴ ⁴² I ⁷⁶ I ^t^(J⁰

·---·-·-^-·-··-· ^.---^·---^-^I ···----· _______ I ___ I I RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN pH AND ALUMINIUM

The relationship between pH measured in 0.0'1 M CaC12 and

aluminium measured in 0.01 M CaC12 is shown in Fig 1. A linear regression was fitted between the points and the equation is shown below, along with the equation for tne pH measured in water and aluminium.

Al Cppm)

=

15.7 - 2.65 pH (CaC12),

Al (ppm)

=

^{19.0 -} 2.86 pH (water), r2

=

^0.18,

r2

=

^0.30, ^r

=

^-CJ.42.

r

=

-U.55, fig 1: Relationship between topsoil (0 - 10 cm) pH measured in

CaC12 and aluminium (CaC12) for 38 sites lmeans of 8 to 16 points).

8.0

•

6.0

•

• • •

• • • •

Al 4.0

• • • •

(ppm)

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• • • •

2.0

•

• •

0

_4.2 _4.4 _4.6 _4.8^~---~-- _5.0 pH 0.01 M CaCl2

4

(7)

COMMENT~.I:

1). The sites were selected from the CSBP data as being acid without prior knowledge of the soil type. Most of the sites were light textured at the surface. The reasons light rather than heavy textured soils are more acid could be many such as low buf ferinq capacity and greater use oi acidifying nitrogen

fertilizers. However, the most important result from the data ^is that this group of soils could have a soil acidity problem at present or within the near future. While the heavier soils do not appear to have this problem at present.

2). A limited amount of Canadian research carried out previously has indicated that an aluminium content measured in 0.02 M CaC12

<1:2 ratioJ of 3 ppm and above is the range in which barley

yields are thought to be reduced tHoyt, ^~t_al, 1974; and most of the sites were in this range Clable 1). The ph range is 5.5 and below <water) and 4.7 and below (CaC12), see Table 2.

3). A significant number of sites <4t:%) had an Al content oi J

I

ppm or above in the A2 ^horizo~<Table 3) indicating that the

subsoil C10 - 30 cmJ as well as the topsoil mav be reducing plant growth. Only 9% of the sites had a high Al content in the ^b

horizon. The results also showed that many of the sites had ^lo~

pH values in the subsoil but this was not always associated with hiqh Al. As a result. the percentage of sites with a pH below

4.7 (CaCl2) and below 5.5 (water) in the subsoil were higher than expected (Tables 4 and 5>. So there may be nutritional problems and/or aluminium problems associated with soil acidity in the subsoil.

4). The soil Al content tin U.01 M CaC12J was not closely

related to either the pH in CaC12 or ^wa~er(Fiq 1;, 0ne (actor acting against a close relationship is site pH and Al variation.

The mean Al variation around tne averaqe value of the site was ^~ O.Yppm and the mean pH variation ^was~0.1 units. However, even with no variat1on the relationship would still not be close.

In conclt1sion these results indicate that soil properties other than pH influence the CaC12 Al ^conten~. These otner properties

may include orqanic matter, phosphate and sulphate, all oi these • compounds, have the ability to bind aluminium. There is some

evidence to support these factors aB 1nany ::i.1 tt-s oCten i-1ad a

similar pH in the Al and A2 horizon but a much lower alum1n1um content in the A2 horizon. With organic matter especially, occurinq mainly in the topsoil.

5). Nine trial sites were selected from the sampled sites, with the sites having a range of both pH and Al as well as being

widely distributed.

REFERENCE:

Hoyt, P.B., Nyberg, M and Penny, D.C. (1974). farming acid so\ ls in Alberta and North eastern British Columbia - Canada Dept

Agric. lOttowa) Pub. No 1521.

(8)

I

•

~lME RESPON~ES lN THE CENTRAL WHEATBELT

LOCATION: Beverley CB. Doncon) and York lJ. Hewett>.

TRIAL NO: 83N045 (Beverley) and 83N046 (York).

FILE NO: 3831 EX

!}J_t!_,?: 1 . To determine whether 1 i me responses occur in wheat and barley on these sites.

2. To determine whether soil properties can be used to predict lime responsiveness and what tne components ot any response are due to.

SO_IL_TY_P._.E:_: Beverley - dark grey sandy loam.

York - dark grey brown sandy loam.

F.XP ER I MENTAL J;ij:S !g_!'!:

For both trials the area was split into 2 species blocks with the five lime treatments being ra~domised witnin each block. Five fertilizer treatments (Nil. N, P, N + P and N + P + MgJ were applied across the blocks. There were tour replications of each lime treatment except for the wheat block at YorK.

which had three replications.

The 1984 season was the second year of the trial. the plots were resown with their respective crop lGamenya and Clipper) on the first June, (York) and the 12th June (BeverleyJ at 50 kg/ha.

Superphosphate C200 kg/hal was applied to all plots. Agran l100 kg/ha) and super l400 kg/ha) were topdressea prior to seeding to the appropriate cross strips. Both the lime and MgS04 (100

kg/ha) were applied in May 1983, and were not reapplied in 1984 .

6

(9)

rrnsutr:=:;:

TABLE 1. Beverley soil characterization.

----· -·----

0 - ₁₀ cm Profile Depths lcm;

Pogo U - 1U 10 - 30 30 - 60 6U - 100 ---·-··---·---··---····-

pH (1+5) H20 pH (1+5) 0.01M

CaC12

EC (1+5) H2u

<mS/m)

Clay(~.;)

.Organic ^C

W/B ^(~;,)

Al, 0.01M CaC12 (ppm) P, 0.5M NaHC03

(ppm)

K, 0.5M NaHC03

<ppm)

5.6 4. 8

7 7.5 0.62

4 10 68

5.0

s.

^j 6.4 6. 6

4 . 4 4.6 5.4 ^{c c}_,

.

^_,

10 5 4 b

5.0 5. 0 1 / 2':1

0.90

4 4 1

33 82

--- ---··

TABLE 2. York site characterization.

pH ( 1+5) H 2 0

pH (1+5) 0.01M CaC12 EC (1+5) H20 (mS/m)

Clay(~.>)

Organic C W/B (%)

Exch. cations, 0.1M BaC12

Total (meq/100 ^g) Al (% of total) Mg Ca

Mn Na

K

Al, 0.01M CaC12 (ppm)

P, 0.5M NaHC03 (ppm) K, 0.5M NaHC03 (ppm>

- ---·----- --· .. --·----··----··

Profile Depths lcm)

0 - 10 10 - 30 30 - 60

5.3 4.5

b

6. 0 0.83

3.35 0.3 (9) 2.4 <72) 0.30(9) 0.1 ⁽³⁾ 0.1lH3) 0.15(4)

.J -, 35 1 3 (J

5.8 4 . 9 3

-· I • _, c

3. 7

u.t

^l3)

3.0 (8t) 0.40(tl)

<.0.05 0.101.Jj 0.10(3J 1

b. 6 5. 5 4

2.95

<0.05 t.8 (61) 0.9(1(31)

<0.05 0.2U(7) 0.05(2) 1

-··-·· •. ·------···----·---

---

I

•

(10)

I

•

TABLE 3. Barley total dry matter ct/ha) at Beverley, ^~sampled 13th December-, 1964 J.

Cross Strip Treatment

-·-t ·----· lime/ha ··-·-·-·---·--···-·---NIL N p NI-' NP Mg

···-·-·-··-·-· ····-· ···-···-·--··-· - - -

0 0. 92 2./6 1. 04 l.49 1. 40

0.5 1.12 2.30 0.98 1. 52 1. 76

1.0 1.05 2. 41 ^0,72 1. 56 1. 20

2.0 0,93 2. 13 0.79 t.66 1. 67

4.0 0.85 2.58 0. 81 2 . Li 3 _1.38

Signif. of

treat. N.S. N. S. N. S. N .S. N.S.

e_tf~_ct_

TABLE 4. Wheat total dry matter (t/ha) at Beverley, (sampled 13th December, 1984).

--- Cross Strip Treatment

. ·--·- -··· ... ··--·-·---·-···---·--

t lime/ha NIL ^N ^p NP NP Mg

--·---·---·- . ---·--·---···---· ---

0 0.68 1. 17 0.95 1.17 0,84

0. 5 0.74 1 . 61 0. 80 '1.36 0,89

1. 0 0.60 1. 36 0.82 1.14 0.83

2.0 0. 61 ·1 • 14 0,81 i.10 u.84

4.0 0.71 1. 23 0.82 1.33 0.85

-·---·--·----· ··--·-·· ---·

Signif, of

treat. N.S. N. S. N • o..J. ^c.· N.S. N.S . effect

TABLE 5. Bar-ley total dry matter Ct/ha) at ^~ark, (sampled 10th December, .1984) .

t lime/ha NIL N p l~P NP Mq

0 2.66 5. 21 4.

s

^(I ^5.2.7 ^4.51

0.5 2.55 5.21 J.69 b.14 S.41

1. 0 3.58 5.20 4. 31 4.JO ^~i.63

2.0 2.74 ^{5 • .:.14} ^4,SJ ^4.6.:.l ^4.i·u

4.0 2.48 5 . 4 l 3.ti6 4.91 4.68

---Siqnif. of ^-·----··--·--··---·--- tceat.

~fiect .. ^{N •}^.S. ^{N. S.} ^N.::;. ^N.::,. ^N.S.

(11)

TABLE 6, Barley grain yield Ct/haJ at fork 1984, 2 reps only due to missinq plot.

t lime/ha NIL N ^p ^NP

---·- ·---·--·--·----··---

0 1 .52 1 . 62 ·1

.

⁴⁸ ^l ^,b8

0.5 1 • 28 1 .76 1 .40 2. 12

1 • 0 t . 40 1 .74 1 .60 1. 50

2.0 ^l. 20 2.08 1 • 40 1 ./6

4. 0 1 . 42 2.06 1 • 40 l .66

Signif of

treat. N. ti. N

.

^C'^..,

.

^N.S. ^N.S.

g_fj ~ct ----··--··"··---· ·----·· ---·---·---

TABLE 7. Wheat grain yield Ct/haJ at York 1984 _I Cross Strip treatment

- - - ---·---·----

0.93 0. B6 1. 2 9

1. 08 l. 16 N.S.

NP

1 . j l 1 . 3 2 1.5/

i. 56 1. 55

rL

s.

··----·---·-----

NP Mg ·-·

1 • '7 4 1 .9ti 1 • 7 4 1 . 8 (, 1 .96 N. S •

NI-' f'lg l .12 a 1.23 ab t.3-:i b 1.51 b 1.48 b O.lJ05 NOTE: Data in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (p ~0.05).

COMMENTS:

1. The Beverley site was severely waterlogged during the growing season resulting in very low yields and consequently the trial was not harvested.

2. Plant counts were unable to be taken at the York site due to weed problems and self sown wheat and barley.

3. The only significant lime response occurred in the wheat NP Mg strip at York with both the 2 and 4 t lime per ha treatments giving a 30 to 35% increase in grain yield above the Nil (Table

•